Christians assert that through their FAITH the Bible is the Word of God. We can't prove it with facts, but you cant prove evolution with facts. So saying that my statement is invalid is also saying that evolution is invalid.
... We have proved evolution with facts... And witnessed many infections viruses evolve and mutate before our eyes... It has its holes, I'll give you that, but not very many if you come to study evolution in depth, its pretty concrete. But... Only a Sith deals in absolutes...
I got an idea. How about we argue that the "budder" trend is the most ridiculously childish and annoying Minecraft trend outside of players getting "married"? -________-
Nooooo. This is the virus overcomming obstacles and passing the trait onto it to the next generation. Humans then "evolved" when they came up with new ways to overcome obstacles and passing it onto their kids. Evolution is apes "transforming" into the amazingly intelligent human beings we have today. Also, why then are there still apes? Why didn't they all evolve as the genes were passed down by their parents?
I know, but if i were to start a debate in there, it would technically be considered off topic, and i would likely get the thread locked. Dont want to risk it there
Oh I see, well ill carry on two debates at once. Budder is not a minecraft related word. Edit: I lied, I'm sleepy and dont wana sleep through math class again.
I didn't say anything about evolution. Are you even reading what I type? Your FAITH is fine. But don't confuse your FAITH with FACT. Believing something is true does not make it so. Also, see moyaboya on evolution. There are holes, but at least there's physical evidence that we can point to and say "this is a thing." God hasn't shown up in any convincing way in at least two millenia. Thus I consign him to the realm of mythology with the rest of the old deities like Zeus and Quetzalcoatl. So you're saying jtc has fallen to the dark side?
Dogs evolved from wolves. Why are there still wolves? /Arguement failed. This is verifiable fact based on decades of research, recorded history, specialized breeding, etc. Dogs aren't the only example, but they effectively prove that "yes, animals evolve." Please don't insult our intelligence and yours with the ridiculous "why are there still monkeys" argument because all that does is waste everyone's time and make you look foolish in the process. EDIT: Based on the pup picture in your sig alone, I think you of all people should've realized this point.
If America came from England, why is there still England? This is a terrible misconception about evolution spread by religious people in a repeatedly failed attempt to obscure the theory of evolution. Lets take Darwin's observations. He noted that there were finches whose bodies were similar, but beaks were different. These finches started out as on species that ate the same food source. There were not enough seeds to go around so one group of the finches went to go eat bigger, tougher nuts. Since the nuts were tougher, the finches with bigger beaks were able to eat them more easily and survived longer to pass on their genes. While the smaller beaked seed-eaters are still there, a new species of nut-eaters has arisen. I see no reason why all the seed-eaters would suddenly disappear and eat nuts if the seeds are still there.
Okay dogs VS cats. Dogs are loyal and active, they will be at your side. Cats lay around all day and lick themselves. So...?
Dogs are there for you. You are there for cats. Long version, dogs make you feel needed. To them, you are the sun and the moon, their Alpha. The pack leader. They look up to you and love you unconditionally. Cats do not need you. They are independent and self-absorbed. You get their affection when they feel like giving it. They will play only when they feel like it. They're more... individual as well. All pets have personalities to some degree, but with cats it's more obvious. I'm a dog person myself - feline avatar aside - but there are some cats I like. In general, I just like dogs more.
I like the way cats look, just not their personalities. If there was a cat-dog mix that looked like a cat but acted like a dog that would be awesome.
I had a cat once that acted like a dog....it would play fetch, chase birds, loved people and attention....that is, at least until it got hit by a car..... :....(
When I argue based on the bible—such as with the eating of pork—I do so with the assumption that the person has accepted it as a valid source. This is done in order to highlight the absurdity of the bible as a valid source. For instance, someone might argue that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible. (Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13) Then I might argue that the bible also says that parents should kill children who curse at them. (Leviticus 20:9) Why do they so gladly accept the first, and reject the last? The point here is to show that in addition to the parts being advocated, there's also a lot of stuff you probably wouldn't agree to in there, and that you can't just freely choose what to accept and what not to. If you do that, then you might as well just toss it out as a source and make up your own mind about things. The other option is to argue against the bible as a source instead. Here, instead of using bible verses to argue against the bible, I instead look at the nature of the bible on its own and argue from that. I've done this mostly in this thread, such as with my videos on biblical history, and pointing out that there are tons of contradictory messages in there, neither befitting a so-called divine document. I never do that, at least not intentionally. I find it very dishonest. I always read the whole verse, and when I make excerpts, I make sure that they are long enough to be valid on their own. For instance, I can never take seriously anyone who posts this quote as though it was said directly by Jesus: I mean, if you take a minute to open up the book and look at Luke 19, you'll immediately see that this line is part of a longer story, and is not spoken by Jesus directly, but instead is part of a narrative. I do not agree with Christianity, but I won't stoop to such pitiful tactics to attempt to discredit it. However, there are passages that simply don't need context, because even if you were to add more context, it wouldn't sound any better:
